Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age

Last December I was looking to buy a camera for my mom to replace her aging Panasonic travel zoom. It didn't take very good photos but, to be fair, you can't expect miracles from a 30x zoom camera with a 1/2.3" sensor. She listed a couple of must-haves: it should fit in a purse, have a decent amount of zoom and have photo quality that was better than what she had now. She didn't want to deal with changing lenses and my dad wanted it to have a viewfinder, if possible.

Being somewhat knowledgeable in the digital camera field I knew that I needed to look at the 1"-type camera market first. Back in mid-December I had just a few options: the Canon PowerShot G3 X / G5 X / G7 X / G9 X, the Panasonic FZ1000 and the Sony RX100 and RX10 series. While quite a few of those cameras passed the 'purse test', none had focal lengths longer than 100mm equiv. For real zoom power there was only the Canon G3 X, Panasonic FZ1000 and Sony RX10, all of which were far, far too large.

The RX100 III and IV meet the size and EVF requirements but are just too limited in terms of zoom.

The Panasonic FZ1000 is my favorite enthusiast superzoom but is way too large for a purse.

Plan B was to find something in the middle: a slightly smaller sensor that had decent zoom, and my choice was Olympus' Stylus 1s. It has solid image quality, well-designed controls, and a 10X zoom, making me think that I found just what I'd been looking for. Shortly after it arrived I did a quick FaceTime chat with the future recipient who thought it was too large for a purse, and I agreed, so back it went.

At this point I felt as if I'd struck out. Anything with a decent zoom was just too darn big, and pocket cameras just wouldn't cut it.

The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V ticked all of the boxes on my shopping list, except for one: image quality.

Not knowing what was coming out next (really!), I bit my tongue and bought a Sony Cyber-shot HX90V. It's small, has a 30X zoom, a pop-up EVF (a la RX100 III/IV), flip-up LCD, and Wi-Fi. Sounds like the perfect gift, except for two rather important things. First, the sensor size is 1/2.3", which is exactly what I was trying to avoid. Second, the lens is quite slow, with a maximum aperture range of F3.5-6.4. Thus, in low light, the camera will need to crank up the ISO, resulting in a big drop in image quality.

The hole in the market

What was missing in the 1" sensor market was pretty obvious: something in-between the compact, short zooms and the giant superzooms. As anyone who has ever bought a piece of consumer electronics knows, your purchase is outdated as soon as it leaves the store. As luck would have it, the camera I'd been waiting for showed up on January 5th: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100.

The Panasonic ZS100/TZ100 finds a middle ground between small/short zoom and huge/long zoom.

The ZS100 (known as the TZ100 in most countries) ticked nearly every box on my list. It's compact, has a reasonable amount of zoom (10X, 25-250mm equiv.), and an EVF (though it's not a great one). Seeing how it uses the same sensor as the FZ1000, photo quality and 4K video should both be very good. The only downside I can find is that the lens, with a maximum aperture range of F2.8-5.9, is pretty slow. At least image quality should hold up when it has to increase the ISO sensitivity in low light.

Unfortunately, the ZS100 wasn't set to ship until mid-March, so my mom was out of luck.

Where's my wide-angle?

Still, there was one area of the 1" camera market in which there was a void, and that was at the wide end.

The Nikon DL18-50 filled in the last gap in the 1" enthusiast compact market with its 18-50mm equivalent lens.

Then, lo and behold, Nikon came running into the market with three new 1" cameras (known as the DLs), which finally filled in that last gap. The camera that did so is the DL18-50 which, as its name implies, has an 18-50mm equivalent lens - easily the widest in this class. And it's a fast one, with a maximum aperture range of F1.8-2.8. There are many other things going for it spec-wise; it has a 20.8MP sensor (likely from Nikon's 1 J5 mirrorless camera), Hybrid AF system (the DL cameras are the only cameras in the 1" category with this), tilting LCD, 4K video and a 'SnapBridge' Wi-Fi system that uses Bluetooth to maintain a constant connection with your phone. We haven't tested it yet, but we're really looking forward to it.

The two other DLs have the same guts, but have focal lengths that fit in with the competition. The DL24-85 slots in-between the Sony RX100 III/IV and Canon PowerShot G7 X I/II, while the DL24-500 is similar to the Canon G3 X and Panasonic FZ1000.

Everyone wins

When I started my search for that Christmas gift, the enthusiast compact market was so limited that I ended up purchasing the very type of camera that I was trying to avoid in the first place. Had Christmas been postponed about four months, the ZS100 would've been in a box with "To Mom" on it.

In the end, this year's rapid growth in the enthusiast compact market didn't help me personally. But there are now cameras for every situation, from wide-angle to super-telephoto. The enthusiast compact market has finally come of age, to the benefit of everyone.

* The G7 X has since been replaced by a Mark II model which offers a faster processor, improved Raw shooting and battery life, and refined ergonomics.

My love broke up 6 months ago and left me heartbroken, this made me sick and my problem became very very difficult and it made me almost gave up but after the love spell from Robinson Buckler, my relationship was restored instantly, I was happy that the outcome was fantastic, only 3 days after robinson.buckler@yahoo.com started it all. Never in my life have I thought this would work so fast. My man reconcile with me and he started acting completely different, we make love everyday (last weekend, we did it 8 times in total!). Now I can say that Robinson spells work! I can now say I feel happy once again, and like never before. It felt so good to have my lover back again, Thanks to Robinson, contact Robinson buckler or call him +1(971)-512-6745Patricia Bowen from New york,USA

Composition always trumps image quality. I would rather have the small sensor superzoom. If you can't get good image quality out of a 1 2/3 your problems won't be fixed by a 1 inch sensor. Obtaining gear before skill will only lead to an upgrade path that ends with over 10,000 post on various forums about the superiority of your gear and its dynamic range.

The best thing to put under the tree would probably have been an iPad Air.Never mind the sensor size or the zoom, the camera can only perform as well as its user can make it. People make fantastic pictures and videos with their smart devices. What's best, they are able to bor...share! With an iPad you do not have to transfer you pictures form a memory card to the device, they are there already. You can watch them, mail them, put them on FB and Instagram and have a backup on the cloud.

Do mothers want megapixels and superzooms? Really?It is kind of like when a dog invited a stork for dinner and offered him bones...you want to give something YOU like which might not at all correspond to the needs of the other.

To me the 'compact' is my iPhone. With the '645' app I get all the buttons I could dream of. The pictures are good enough for social media. If I want close ups of birds or animals with big teeth, I take my 150-600 Tamron. I also buy post cards...

Did you read the first paragraph where he said that his mom specifically requested a decent zoom and better image quality? Just because you're content with a mobile device as your camera doesn't mean everybody is.

Whatever, but her son could not come up with anything decent.People think they want all kinds of things when they actually would be much happier with something else. Like an iPad Air for instance. Unless she has one already.

I just get that disgusting feeling when I see that someone sends the camera back for so stupid reasons... And then someone will buy it as "open box", or whatever... Just because: "my mama said it wouldn't fit in her purse"!!! Spoiled American consumers...

Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

We could have a 'T' as a unit of the area of a photographic sensor. Like thousands of square millimetres. An 'inch' sensor would be 0.21 T, 4/3 0.37 T, APS-c 0.6 T (Nikon) and finally FF 0.9 T.Image circle is related to the lens. I can put a FF lens on a 4/3 sensor camera. The sensor size remains the same.

Olf, of course aspect ratio is relevant. The same lens, put on two different cameras, one with (say) a square sensor that touches the edge of the image circle, and another with (say) a 19:6 sensor which touches the edge of the image circle - both, therefore, with the same diagonal measurement - will give very different amounts of image data. Indeed, the "slitty" formats throw away a lot of what could have been captured by the lens, using the squarer formats.

Indeed, a 30.6mm square format would fit in the image circle of an unmasked 135-format lens: same diagonal as regular 135 (24x36), but returning considerably more image data (8.3% more area). Yet without quoting aspect ratio, both would have the same (diagonal) "crop factor".

I'd like to add another example of a sensor size,E.g. RX100 1" (13,2*8,8) = 116, where the diameter is 15,86mm, and an inch is 25,4mm. I'm aware of the origin of the 1" term, but it's applied inconsistently (and underhandedly).

Olf, you misunderstand: this is nothing to do with "stops". It's to do with angle of view, so that when presented with (say) a 24mm lens, you know whether, on a given camera, it will be wide-angle (eg, on 135), ultra-wide (on 6x6cm), standard (on 4/3rds) or telephoto (on an iPhone sensor).

My suggestion, relating to field diagonal, gives you a direct mathematical index with which to grade your lens.

Mark 100: the reason I am talking about diagonal, and NOT area, is that it directly relates to lens specifications. A 50mm lens on a 43mm diagonal is thought of as "standard", and gives the same angle of view as a 25mm lens on a 22mm diagonal sensor (such as 4/3rds). Simply, lens focal length divided by diagonal of sensor size gives you all you need to know to understand the relationship of lens and sensor size.

The same would not be true if you used areas of sensors as your index. And with the current mishmash of names, it's pure guesswork at best, and smoke and mirrors at worst!

Olf, if have you actually READ my post above, you'll see that I understand that. Which is why, in my suggestion, the aspect ratio should be included in the sensor description.

To repeat: I want to know TWO things about a sensor. (1) what is the diagonal relative to some standard (eg 135/35mm) so I know how it relates to fields of view relative to lens focal lengths and (2) what is the aspect ratio, so I know what in which format my images will be recorded.

So you only talk about framing and composition. Strange there is absolutely no mention of this on your firsts messages from this discussion (and you even compare area covered by aspect ratio in a quantitative way !)And you did not tell why you want to use 1/crop factor instead of crop factor.

The Olympus 7-14 f2.8 pro is the only thing remotely comparable to the DL18-50 and they're in two entirely different size/price brackets. The DL18-50 is so much smaller than ANY body/lens combination around 18mm ~f5 FF equiv it's not even comparable.

It's also priced pretty well given it's lens capability even for those who already own systems they could add fast ultra-wides to, size ignored. For example the mentioned olympus lens is $200 more than the DL for those that already own an m43 body. Canon's 16-35 F4 is similar, also more expensive. The only situations where the lens on the DL could be matched with an existing body I could come up with are throwing the 17-40 F4 canon on an A7Rm2+adapter or maybe, if you want to push it, the 11-22 EOS-M (slower, no stabilization, M body's suck).

I know you say tongue in cheek, but I think this and competition show that a fixed lens is the best use of the 1" sensor. The Nikon 1 just isn't small enough to justify. Personally, I'd like to see more 1" sensors in phones like the CM-1 or 808 Pureview.

I see the Light L16 as the pocket camera future thing.You have 16 sensors with optics with various angles and ranges and the software creates the picture. It is fantastic!Even the spy drones use this technology now, instead of making huge lenses and sensors that are fragile and expensive.

I feel that the G7X gets not enough love around here. The image quality may not be pixel perfect, but it is certainly very good and the prints up to A4 look absolutely flawless. But where the G7X really shines, is its fantastic touchscreen, which is very responsive and helpful. The LCD is bright enough for even sunny days, so the EVF is no really missed, even better, you can tilt the EVF.the 24-100 mm f1.8-2.8 is really helpful. Although 200 mm would be nice on the long end, 100 mm is much better than 70mm and you can get decent portraits with OOF background at 100 f2.8.Continuous RAW is really slow I know, but JPG is fast, and for that one time, you can skip RAW. It is not a professional camera, but it is a very good one for 90% of the situation and it certainly fits in a purse.

I'm undecided on this Olympus OM-D E-10 Mark ii and the Panasonic Lumix LX100. I know there's the obvious fact that the Olympus can have interchangeable lenses. I would use the 14-42mm lense. Any thoughts?﻿

Both cameras are around the same price and both use a 4/3 sensor. Both have similar resolution EVF and LCD screens.

This might help you decide:

1. The OM10 II is larger and heavier once you add a lens2. The LX100 lens is faster than the OM10 II kit lens3. The OM10 II gets bigger if you add a better than kit lens4. The LX100 has 4K video5. The OM10 II can use any of over 60 AF lenses6. The LX100 uses a smaller part of a 4/3 sensor. 13 MP7. The OM10 II has a tilting LCD, the LX100 doesn't

If you want lower size, cost, 4K video and the convenience of never changing lenses, the obvious choice is the LX100.

If you want more versatility and better resolution for stills, then pick the OM10 II. It really just depends on your own wants and needs.

I own both. If you are used to the Oly viewfinder, then the LX100 viewfinder is rather disappointing. No tilting screen either. For that reason only I prefer the OM10 II or my old EM5. If you ar going for small also think of a GM5.

I don't own a m43 ILC body but if I did, I'd just skip buying a standard zoom lens (the 12-35 is super expensive) and buy the LX100 instead. Leave the full ILC body to service the portrait/tele end of your lineup. The LX100's lens is worth it on it's own. If you really are going to have a bag full of lenses (and not just the kit lens that comes with your OM-D) then you'll appreciate having the super-light LX100 around your neck to assist your main body camera OR being able to leave the kit bag AT HOME when you don't need the reach. LX100 fits nice in the wife's purse (or your purse for the few). Your 12-35 won't, nor does it take pictures on it's own.

no the perfect enthusiast compact does not yet exist ....it has the controls of the x 70 the zoom of the nikon dl 18-50 and the evf of the fuji x 30 and a so called 1 inch sensor ......where the f%$&*%$%#k is that camera !!!!!!

NO EVF BUILT IN A CORNER POSITION is a fail......sugar cubesevfs in hotshoe are so 2012 ..... kills pocketability.... adds cost.. are inconvenient .and looks stupid .... ive been down that road with a gf1 an ep5 and gx1 even with a ricoh gx200 and im done with it .... canon and nikon remain clueless stubborn and backwards in this sector .....they remind me of a company from the last millennium known as kodak you press the shutter ....we collapse in bankruptcy ,kodak

no .....the compact i want , my expectations are reasonable , does not exist

I replaced my aging Canon s95 with a Sony RX100 mII thinking that it could take the place of my heavy D610 for hiking in the mountains. No way.

All the image quality issues aside, the thing that bugs me the most about compacts is SPEED. When I flip the switch on my d610 I can start firing photos instantly. I don't have to wait for the lens to slide out every time. With the DSLR I can change the aperture or focus point while taking the photos...something that is really ponderous and slow on the RX100. Compacts have come a long way but they are nowhere near DSLRs.

Its is all swings and round abouts. I often walk with a DSLR without the lens cap and its just so fast to use. Its a D90 and i use the top panel to choose the focus point before the camera gets to my eye. But compact is way better one handed and if your riding a bike or climbing that is a massive difference. I'm in the process of moving from a Olympus ZX-1 to a Sony RX100. Thank you Sony for keeping on the RX 100 and letting the price fall. I'd love a TZ100 but its too much for me at the moment

Recently I started playing with the Fuji XQ2. I just love the camera. Slides easily in and out of my pockets; the on-off switch is perfectly placed; it locks on the target instantly and takes phenomenal pictures with the same lovely colors of its brethren. The sensor is smaller but not as low as a 1/2.3, and it is only 12Mp. But who cares if it is used for medium size prints? The shots are sharp, sharp as the camera also has an excellent IS. The zoom is not as large as other compacts. Who cares, as I am not photographing birds but friends and everything else. I have not experienced any of the frustrations mentioned by the DPR reviewer. This camera is all pleasure during the shoot and certainly after, when seeing the results. Jeff, give it a try! Your mom is worth it. For what it is selling these days, it's a steal.

amazing camera .... same sensor ax the x 30 not perfect but my favorite compact ..... cant stand pop up evf on flimsy cams.... though this fuji has no evf it amazing tiny yet sturdy for the solid files it can produce

Jeff,Once I purchased a Fuji F50fd for my mom. Later on I bought F200EXR for myself (much later on I bought a Canon S120 but sold it due to terrible battery life which my wife refused to use it at all. She said me to throw it away! I sold it :). I used F200EXR for many occasions and never got dissappointed (except for terrible video quality which is phenomenal to almost every Fuji). We still use and like Fuji's. For some reason, they are very reliable, battery life is very good and after sooo many years, battery health is still very good (in fact unbelivably good; my mom forgets when she charged her camera battery but when it is used, it takes more than enough photos). I also like Fuji skin tones very much. I wanted to buy XQ2 but still not exist domestically. If it is as good as previous Fuji's, it wouldn't dissappoint.

The Sony RX100 and RX10 have already been filling this category extremely well, with the RX100 hitting 24-70 equivalent and f/2-2.8, and the RX10 hitting 24-200 at a constant f/2.8, which for the size and weight is downright impressive.

I just felt like pointing that out, since there's an error (misspeak? missunderstanding?) about none of the existing (December) compacts going longer than 100mm equivalent.

Having said that, as a landscape & nightscape photographer, the Nikon DL 18-50 is definitely the choice for me.

+1 on the Nikon DL 18-50, but let's wait and see if there are any flies in the ointment. Sometimes, these things have great spec. sheets, but then utterly fail for some unpredicted reason. Nikon has experience building cameras, so I bet this won't be the case, but we'll see.

I'd argue that the RX10 mk2, though a bit sizable and 1.7 lbs, was a pretty killer compact considering its constant f/2.8 zoom. I'd rather have insane wide-open sharpness and 24-200mm equivalent at a constant f/2.8, than worry about fitting a camera into a smaller pocket. And my wife owns maybe a dozen purses, none of them would be considered too small for an RX10 series. Maybe you're thinking of a "clutch" style purse?

This is a moving target. First "the enthusiast compact" came of age when in response to Panasonic LX3 everyone starter making fast zoom compacts. Then it came of age when Sony released the 1" compact. Then it came of age with compact fixed FL cameras with APS-C sensors. Now we can look forward to compact APS-C 3x zooms, and possibly compact FF fixies a la Sony RX1. Then something else will come along, and none of the cameras listed in this article will be even considered seriously.

Of course its a moving target. That's progress. If your happy with what you have then fine spend your money else where. But its no disadvantage to you that the newer cameras are better if you are happy with what you have

It's getting better for sure... but I still think the market has a lot of limitations and holes to fill. There's always this feeling of timid tenuousness with camera companies for the most part when adapting to market conditions- almost like they are just one step behind demands at all times. Not faulting them necessarily, just mentioning the feelings.

The industry is making progress, but still failing to deliver the product I'm looking for. Which is simply something better than a iPhone, but as convenient. Wider. 24mm or 25mm equivalent. Faster. f2.0. Fits in a pocket - I mean really, like you can sit down with it still in your pocket. "Pocketable" is failure. The Canon G7x is so close, just needs a wider lens, or even a pano function.

Not as knowleable as you think. P&S cameras can give excellent results in good light, as good as, or better than system cameras with kitzooms.I suggest the following cameras for your mom: Canon Ixus 255, Lumix TZ7/8/10/25, Casio ZR700/800/850/3500.I use these for1m prints in galleries. Oh yes low light. Be careful with an APS-C Sony , Canon or Fuji!Hope your mom will have soon have her perfect camera!

Each camera has its own merits. It is very difficult to choose from these lots. If only someone can compile a table just to highlight the strengths and weaknesses and various aspects of these cameras would be great.I quite fancy that touch screen and low power blue tooth connection of that Nikon 18-50mm though.

As much as I try to agree with Jeff's posting's title and conclusions - I cannot. Case in point: I am looking for a replacement for my Nikon P7700/7800 camera and none of the current 1" compact enthusiast cameras cuts the mustard, every single one of them is missing not one, but several features that I am looking for in a relatively small take-it-everywhere camera (and that the manufacturer miraculously managed to include in P7700/7800). And yes, I am aware of advantages that these newer cameras have over older 1/1.7" enthusiast cameras, but why oh why do these have to come at the price of omitting a bunch of useful features that older cameras combined in a single body? Or if they are not omitted, why do they only come in big packages of super zooms?

For example: In Panasonic ZS100 (which in some ways comes closest to what I am looking for) just at first glance I miss (at least): an articulating screen, a hot shoe, an external mic connector.

I agree with both Jeff and your points. It's a good time to be in the market for a SMALL enthusiast compact, such as the ones mentioned in Jeff's opinion piece, but the larger enthusiast compacts like the P7800 have largely disappeared in favor of the smaller mirrorless bodies (PEN-F for example, has as similar form factor as the P7800 with the fully articulating screen + EVF, comparison: http://j.mp/1XViNt5 ). I am in a similar boat, my favorite compact camera of all time was the Samsung EX2F, with fulling articulating screen, hot shoe, F1.4 lens, and external controls all over the place that were useful + logical. That camera had a solid movie mode, as a bonus, with better sound than its bigger mirrorless NX brothers. Unfortunately, that smaller sensor was not getting it done for me with stills (the main reason to have camera) so, I replaced it with a much less friendly NX Mini. Stills are MUCH better, but I do miss the features on the larger body. Always a compromise, I guess.

"every single one of them is missing not one, but several features that I am looking for in a relatively small take-it-everywhere camera (and that the manufacturer miraculously managed to include in P7700/7800)." - would you please list these features? Articulating screen, EVF, what else?

sbansban: These are all features that I have available in P7700/7800 and I really use them - some of them all the time - the articulating screen and decent zoom range, the others only occasionally, but they ARE important to me (EVF, external flash microphone). in P7700/7800 the built-in flash can even act as a commander for an off-board external flash (very convenient!).

Examples of important features missing (from my POV):

Panasonic ZS100: NO articulating screen (a total deal-breaker for me in such a camera), NO external flash, NO mic port, less external controls than P7700/7800 (or so it seems).

And the moral of the story - if the gear you're wanting doesn't exist yet, wait a bit (if possible) and re-evaluate your options. I hope she's happy with the Sony! And if not, I hope she can get a good deal on the Panny.

I am surprised to see that the Canon Powershot S120 is not even mentioned in the selection of decent cameras that fit into a purse.

I doubt that the majority of shooters will benefit from the wider zoomrange of the Sony HX90V (24-720mm vs. 24-120mm) compared to the larger sensor and the brighter lens of the Canon S120 (plus RAW files and a slimmer body).

In terms of pocketability versus image quality the S120 is still a great choice. I would never trade it for a 1/2.3" camera.

I just wish Canon would add an EVF to it without increasing the camera thickness.

Yes, the S120 is a terrific camera. It replaced an S110, but the audio went out on that so it became much less useful for video. It has been my primary travel camera for going on a couple of years.

Comments elsewhere on here about superzooms are less than favorable, but I also have a Canon SX60, which I got with some trepidation. It has a VERY long zoom equivalent, and I wondered what the heck I would do with it; I've never used a lens that was was longer than 200mm, maybe a 300mm once or twice. But it has been interesting to have this truly LONG zoom capability (over 1300mm equiv), and I have used it. The SX60 IS does a good job of quelling the handheld shakes. I like having the long reach at times.

As sensor size gets larger, (for better image quality), lenses will follow. You can't have a tiny long fast AF lens on a 1" sensor without changing the laws of physics. IMO you still can't beat M4/3 systems for the best compromise of size vs.image quality.

Best size vs image quality = Sony RX1RIIAs for more versatile systems it's all personal priorities.Gm-1/GF7/GM-5 are definately hard to beat with a couple of small primes(which there are lot's off in m43.

That´s questionable. An 1" sensor camera with 24-100mm f1,8-2,8 lens is actually better choice than f3,5-5,6 lens on M4/3 camera and even on APSC. F1,8-2,8 on 1" sensor equals to f4,9-7,6 on FFF3,5-5,6 on 4/3" sensor equals to f7-11,2 on FFF3,5-5,6 on APSC sensor equals to f5,3-8,4 on FF.Of course bigger sensor has better DR, lower noise, handler high ISO better etc., however with bright lens you don´t need to get your ISO high. So a 1" sensor compact with bright lens (like the RX100 or DL24-85) is a better option than M4/3 CSC with kit lens. To get more out of 4/3 sensor you need a fast lens, but in this case it´s no longer small or pocketable.

You may be true. But there are a lot of people using M4/3 cameras as a "better point-n-shoot" and never change the kit zoom (the same applies to entry-level DSLRs). For example my father has a M4/3 camera and uses only the 14-42mm kit lens (I wonder whether he would be able to detach the lens). And from what I have seen the majority of small mirrorless cameras (Oly PEN series, Pana GF/GM series etc.) has kit lens attached.

Interesting. Many years ago now, the first reasonably affordable mass market digital cameras were all-in-one units with 2/3" CCDs. These cost more than entry level DSLRs do today. Some, for the time were really quite good, even though they were still working out a number of nascent technologies, you could get some useful stuff from Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, Sony, and others...

Camera phones weren't yet a blip on the horizon, and as competition in premium compacts increased, sensors actually got smaller. First 1/1.8", and then even smaller, with all sorts of collapsing/extending zoom options on 1/2.3 and 1/2.7" point and shoots.

Then smart phones started getting really smart and ubiquitous, hell, they were in your pocket already, and they were good enough. Camera makers had focused on making P&S cameras cheap rather than good.

They simply had to get better if they wanted any hope of selling point and shoot cameras in the future.

quote: "The RX100 III and IV meet the size and EVF requirements but are just too limited in terms of zoom."

and along comes the "fill gap" model from Nikon, hooray!!!!

But wait the zoomrange is even smaller than the RX100 iii and iv!!!!

Why on earth does the RX100 not qualify then?? I don't get it. I knov the Nikon Compact has some features in terms of wifi/bluetooth, that is nifty, but that's has got nothing to do with the camera as a mean to take pictures!

This is another example of Dpreview being so Canon and Nikon-centric, which again and again reminds me that their reviews are biased in a way, that makes it unusable.

The G7x was pathetically slow (2 fps?), but the Mark II can shoot RAW at 8 fps, so it should compete nicely now.While below I wonder about general demand for long zoom, I also think 70mm eq.(RX100 III/IV) is pretty short. My universal walkaround lens is 17-70mm (25-105mm eq.), anything shorter is a bit too limiting. However when I had the Canon S100, it´s 24-120mm range was completely OK (this equals to 16-80mm on APSC, which is an ideal allrounder).Just my 2c.

The Nikon doesn't have an on-board EVF, a basic necessity for an "enthusiast" compact. Adding the DF=E1 electronic viewfinder will bring the total price much closer to the RX-100m4.

15mm difference (Nikon to Sony) in focal length is a couple of steps in field of view. It's silly to promote or demote one choice over another for 15mm.

The Nikon looks to be a very capable camera. That said, it's a competitor, with advantages and disadvantages compared to the Sony. The point of the article was there was a new superior product available, finally offering a true enthusiast camera. That claim is ridiculous.

I agree. I don't think you can take any camera seriously if it does not have a viewfinder. Certainly a camera that is difficult or impossible to frame an image in normal conditions of bright daylight is not an enthusiast camera.

Check out the images from the new Samsung S7. Even my ageing Note 4 takes daylight and evening images that on my 27" Dell 4K monitor are hard to differentiate from my GX8 plus 12-35 f2.8, except in very low light. Samsung have somehow managed to use very small lenses to let in a lot of light. Against the laws of physics or the wonders of Korean technology? ;)

@MrT - Yes, and that's kinda my point. Camera phones are doing so well (other than lacking any lens flexibility) what's the point in sticking a 1/2.3" in a camera body? To get a decent step-up in quality, I want to see 1/1.8" in a ultra-compact body.

My last 1/1.8"-ish sensor was in the Panny LX3, and it was *excellent* eight years ago. Today, it could offer a lot better IQ than a camera phone, sat behind a modest zoom lens.

1/1,8" sensor wouldn´t make much of a difference compared to 1/2,3" sensor in smartphones (like Xperia Z5). The common standard n enthusiast compacts has been the 1/1,7" sensor which allowed really tiny cameras (see Canon´s S-series) and that is being abandoned now. I can see the point of pocketable ultrazoom with 1/1,7" sensor with bright and long lens, e.g. 25-250mm f1,8-2,8. However now when there is Panasonic TZ100 with similar specs, a lot larger sensor (despite having slower lens), I don´t believe it would sell well.

"Camera phones are doing so well (other than lacking any lens flexibility) what's the point in sticking a 1/2.3" in a camera body?"

Well, physical zoom is a pretty big deal (especially the 24mm wide angle) -- as are physical controls (my Samsung phone doesn't even have a dedicated shutter button -- one handed operation is almost impossible). The image quality of my compact isn't necessarily better, but it can do so much more that I still use it a lot when hiking and I don't want to schlep the DSLR.

A bigger sensor in my travel zoom would certainly be nice, but not at the cost of a much larger camera (the Nikon DL24-500 looks to be almost as big as my SLR rig) while the DL24-85 gives up a lot of telephoto.

Ditto, owning a GX8, I am never again (unless it's a good phone camera, like the new Samsung S7/S7 Edge), going back to a camera without a viewfinder. Priceless in composing shots or video, and playing back covertly.If they put the flash from the DL 24-85 in the 18-50 and included a VF, it would be an appealing alternative to my otherwise awesome GX8, that is quite heavy and bulky with attached zoom. Sony will win this because the RX100MkLatest still has all the features, except good ergonomics.

I'm not sure there's any need for an "S" model in the A7 line anymore. The A7Rm2's 4K covers nearly the entire sensor and downsampled it's SNR is essentially the same. The mark 2 might be the death of the "S" line.

Buy an Olympus Stylus 1s (or just "1") for your mom. It's small enough, has EVF, has f2.8 aperture all along, has 1/1.7" sensor (with it was 1"), and did I say small? Not as small as RX100 etc.. but you cannot get all at the same time.

But the DL18-50 is just as thick as the 1s and almost as big in the other dimensions. I find it surprising it would fit in many purses that wouldn't fit the 1s. Ditching the 1s for size and then holding up the DL18-50 as an answer seems a bit odd.

@camera fan – But he didn’t. According to Jeff, the camera that would have been the answer is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100. That camera is decisively smaller than the Olympus in every dimension.

I really dig the 18mm wide end of the new Nikon. That really is something that has been missing from the compact segment. Just hope the IQ is not much behind RX100 series. Likewise, the "only" 10x new Panasonic TZ with large sensor and F values looks like a good compromise. If only they stopped applying that stupid noise reduction smearing on anything over base ISO. I'd trade that with the new Olympus grainy look any given day.

Let me share a secret with you: when you're shooting landscapes, you're usually not in the greatest hurry. Take your left hand, squeeze your fingers together. Then tilt them to form a 90 degree angle with your palm. Stick that on the top left edge of the screen. Rinse and repeat with the right. Stick your forehead against your fingers. Voila!

Now, seriously, there's always the optional electronic viewfinder. They DO have it, if you're serious about shooting perfect landscapes with a 1" sensor compact and the extra price is no problem :)

Smearing at 100% level likely as not improves the picture at normal viewing. Just because you are getting detail at 100% does not mean the image is better. The obsessive must look at it under a microscope buying public are probably a very small proportion of users and the smearing may offset the flatter colour depth you get with a smaller sensor.You may find the collagen structure of the most beautiful model in the world may not be aesthetically pleasing to a micro biologist but it hardly relevant in the real world and this site is probably as far as you can get away from the real world.

It's not the smearing that seems appalling to me, but the fact they'd rather take away the choice from the users. Just offer more rendering options. Noise, smear, tear blah and set what seems trendy at the time of the launch as the default.

Thing is, when you do print an image, the finer flaws like noise tend to lend a specific character to the print, whereas the splatters simply kill details and return a plastic-like look.

Also, I didn't mention landscapes, I really wouldn't use anything that small for specifically doing nice tripod landscapes. Not as long as you can just grab a 14mm 2.8 for Fuji, same money, at least from my perspective.

The Nikon's 18 end seems fantastic for fast action, like kids and pets running around, combined with the 20fps cAF speed, this is what made me interested. Plus it's not THAT large, so might be easy to carry around.

3 Μpixels is more than enough for uploading a picture in the web, 6Mpixells can deliver a nice A4 print. The smartphone manufacturers add a lot of "pearls and mirrors" to their products just for us to buy their new silly products, the vast majority of them have expiring date like food, some of them in purpose some due to misuse or careless. Smartphones are of the most overpriced gadgets today. Everyone may have an opinion, but please smartphone users, get a life first.

I wonder why are compact camera buyers so obsessed with looooong zoom. Once I had a pocketable compact (Canon S100) and despite it had only 120mm at tele end, I was hardly able to get a picture anytime but in bright sunny day because of luminosity f5,9 at tele end. I know a good OIS can do a lot but usability of a camera at 720mm eq. and f6,3 seems very limited to me.Like many of us I am often asked to advise a camera and the demands are always the same: small, pocketable, with good image quality AND with long zoom. I tend to recommend enthusiast compacts like RX100 et al, but many people reject it because of short zoom. However people who took my advise were very satisfied with the outcome and didn´t regret it (and to their surprise they didn´t miss the huge zoom).

iudex--just spent a day in Bristol(UK),which abounds with Georgian Architecture yet because of so much urban clutter(street signs etc),most of my shots were taken at a greater than 100mm. Slow lens can be negated by leaning on a lampost or equivelant and generally you need a reasonable depth of field. With a longer lens you can pick out a good composition which would otherwise need severe cropping post production. Many of these cameras are promoted as" travel zooms" and as such I feel you need a reach of at least 200mm

Pedro: I take your standpoint, everyone has different demands. But for my city trips I hardly need more then 150mm eq. I am going to Iceland im May and the only case I think I will need a long lens is whale watching. I will have to manage it with 100mm prime (150mm eq).

The biggest problems I still have with the current crop of zoom compacts (whether those with 1" or sightly smaller sensors) are their slow lenses that struggle to freeze subject motion especially in less than ideal light. I am hoping we will soon see (within just a few more years) cameras the size of ZS100 that have 10X or higher zoom and F1.4-F2.0 lenses. Is that too much to ask?

sbansban: what cameras do you mean? Since the majority of recent enthusiast compacts has really fast lenses (typically f1,8-2,8).But if you mean an 1" sensor ultrazoom with 10x or bigger zoom and expect luminosity of f1,4, well, that really is a problem. Not that it was impossible, but the camera (lens) would be huge. Remember, f-number = focal length/diameter of entrance pupil.

F1.8 at the wide end is commonplace now. The Olympus Stylus 1 / 1s has F2.8 through its 11X zoom range in a coat-pocketable form factor. The LX7 achieved F1.4-2.3 several years back. Do y'all have a best case scenario prediction for the next 5 years regarding how fast of an aperture can be expected for a 10X-ish pocketable zoom compact?

Probably not gonna happen unless there some significant advancement in optics.

If you're using a 1" sensor, then you're using a 2.7x crop factor, meaning that a 24-240 zoom (10x) would have an actual focal length of 9-90mm. To get F/2 on the long end of a 90mm lens, you'd need at least a 45mm aperture, and a slightly larger front element to accommodate that aperture, at which point you're looking at a lens that has at least a 52mm front element, which is barely pocketable in the best of circumstances. As a point of comparison, the Olympus 75/1.8 lens for m4/3 is a 75mm lens with a 42mm aperture (75/1.8 = 42mm), and it needs to take a 58mm filter thread.

You mention the LX7 and the Stylus 1, which both use 1/1.7" sensors. These sensors have (IIRC) ~4.5x crop factors, so even a Stylus 1's 300mm effective lens is really only 67mm, and at f/2.8 it only needs an aperture opening of 24mm. That's a one inch diameter compared to a two inch diameter, or 1/4 the front element area.